onelake_list_shortcuts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a listing operation and returns a dictionary, which implies a read-only behavior. It does not mention permissions, error cases, or how shortcuts are represented in the returned dictionary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized into a summary, args, returns, and example, with no unnecessary prose. It is compact and front-loaded. The 'ctx' line adds minor noise but does not significantly hurt clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the main input parameters, the output type, and an example. However, with no output schema, 'Dictionary with list of shortcuts' is vague and does not explain the structure of the result, empty-result behavior, or possible errors. Given the absence of annotations, these are meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that lakehouse is a name or ID and that workspace is optional with context fallback. The example further clarifies real usage. The mention of 'ctx' is a slight inconsistency since ctx is not in the input schema, but the example omits it, reducing confusion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all OneLake shortcuts in a lakehouse.' This is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like onelake_ls, but the 'shortcuts' entity makes the purpose understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The primary use case is implied by the verb 'List' and the example invocation. It also usefully notes that workspace is optional and uses context when not provided, which helps an agent decide whether to pass it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.